|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Shelma1
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 116
76
« on: July 08, 2020, 09:22 »
Theres no good reason to ask 75%-90% less for vectors than for photos. No other agency has such cockamamie pricing.
77
« on: July 08, 2020, 09:21 »
Duplicate post
78
« on: July 07, 2020, 17:37 »
I just dont understand why vectors are priced at a small fraction of every other type of image. It makes no sense.
79
« on: July 07, 2020, 15:50 »
Trying to submit and I'm getting all kinds of new warning boxes, like my description matches my title, or it isn't long enough, or "Congratulations" on my unique title, and it seems to be taking my description and adding those words to my keywords...
I havent uploaded there in a long time, but I remember that stuff happening back when I did upload there.
80
« on: July 07, 2020, 11:36 »
I've been talking to many photographers lately and none of them stopped uploading. I honestly expected the contrary. What I want to say is that this forum is not reflection of reality at all. It is occupied by contributors who promorte boycott and agressive measures and the majority that still uploads is silent. The more realistic reflection of reality would make this forum much more useful for all of us. I blame promoters lf boycott for this, they (we) are too hursh on the ones who have different opinion. Let them talk and let not be even worse than SS itself by not listening or caring about others opinion.
Yet more people disable or delete their Shutterstock ports and more join the coalition every day. Well hit 5,500 members today or tomorrow.
81
« on: July 04, 2020, 16:31 »
Just a tiny 22K+ portfolio.
And, recently my SS is up, but AS is down.
What's wrong with me?
Fortunately, my total microstock sales follow a widely accepted downhill trend,
so I am not "Josephine" yet. 
Youre not Josephine because you dont come here solely to troll.
83
« on: July 03, 2020, 13:46 »
In 2016 "Josephine" was in the micro stock business either 3 years or 5 years, depending on what she felt like claiming that day. Then in 2017 she was in 5 years again. Then in 2018 anyone who'd been in the business for 7 years was old and out of new ideas, even though if, in 2016, she'd actually been in the business for 5 years, by 2018 she would have been in the business 7 years and would have been old and out of new ideas herself, by her reckoning.
Now she's making more money with a royalty cut. Or is it less money? Three times more, five times more, three times less, five times less? Seven times more or less when she runs out of ideas? Who knows.
October 11, 2016, 13:35
I am very lucky. I am in the business since three years.
November 27, 2016, 11:18
I make a living on micros since 5 years.
May 10, 2017, 13:07
sorry to tell you, the sales are great since a couple of months, the sales are getting better and better. I am with them since 5 years.
April 23, 2018, 11:31
old are those, who are in the Microstock business for more than 7 years. They ran out of new ideas. And they remember the golden days.
84
« on: July 01, 2020, 15:40 »
I have to imagine SS foresaw a protest, but figured people would just pull their ports. Certainly it never occurred to Pavlovsky that contributors would be looking at his abhorrent Twitter likes. Nor did it occur to Oringer that he should hire a PR team to handle his social media instead of telling the hands that feed him to go take a hike.
85
« on: July 01, 2020, 10:42 »
Don't be fooled...
Joining Microstock (and doing my homework) automatically led me to this place so how come this place isn't flooded with messages from dissatisfied contributors who want to know what is going on or who want to express their feelings or what actions they have taken? Are they afraid? Is it the language barrier? Without this forum I would be running around like a headless chicken, I kid you not! This place has made me aware of many things in Microstock, even outside Microstock!
Everyone's on the coalition FB page and website. https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/https://stockcoalition.org
86
« on: July 01, 2020, 09:45 »
Read the terms and conditions. SS can license your work for 90 days after you've disabled it (what they consider "a reasonable period") to people who've downloaded your work under the free "comp" (comprehensive) license.
What I find appalling is that at first they were emailing people and asking their permission to re-enable their ports because a buyer requested an image, but now they're just selling the work without bothering to ask. Of course, because we accepted their one-sided terms they have that right, but along with Oringer's tweets to take your work and leave, it just goes to show their true feelings about all the hands that feed them.
87
« on: June 28, 2020, 16:54 »
I listed one thing but got no sales, and at the time it was easier to just sell on Shutterstock. However, theres a Facebook group dedicated to selling digital files on Etsy. https://www.facebook.com/groups/562343867519170/
88
« on: June 26, 2020, 14:10 »
I have no idea about the future earnings. I want to find out if there is anybody in this forum who is better off this month.
The difference of this month is, that the earnings per image vary from 10 cents and 20 Dollar, strange figures, 2.96, 0.80, 3.58, 4.63 and so on. Before I mainly had 0.38 and 2.85. This is a completely new development. If it is for the better in the future, I dont know.
Its simple. Figure out your previous RPD (average earnings per download). Then figure out your RPD for June. I find it hard to believe that you, who only pop here every so often to troll and put people down, suddenly have better earnings when the rest of us have the opposite. Illustrators led the way in disabling their Shutterstock portfolios, which shows the dissatisfaction with this money grab. Your anonymous, impossible to substantiate claim of higher earnings, even if somehow true, would be an anomaly and basically irrelevant.
89
« on: June 26, 2020, 07:25 »
I'm unemployed and deactivated my portfolio. It hurts, but it has to be done.
90
« on: June 26, 2020, 06:21 »
While I appreciate the idea, I see three immediate issues: 1. Too time-consuming for buyers. 2. Way too time-consuming for sellers...imagine having to check the website constantly to see requests, then having to gather appropriate images, then having to send them off, only time after time to have someone elses image chosen. 3. Attracting buyers. This is the main problem for any site and the reason so many fail. It costs a lot of money to compete with huge stock sites.
91
« on: June 26, 2020, 06:12 »
I am not judging anyone and I wish others weren't so fast to judge. The anger that is turning towards Shutterstock contributors instead of SS itself is sad to see. First everyone was attacking SS, now they are all attacking each other.
No one know their personal situation. For many people Stock is their main income and for many others it's a side income, that they depend on, because the main income doesn't earn enough to live from, which can happen faster than you think in Corona times.
Even if they earn patehtic amounts for single videos or images, they might still overall make enough money from SS that at the end of the month it might make a difference to their financial situation and without the money, even if it is much less than what they earned before, they might have problems paying their bills.
There are also many people who want to at least try out the new system and get a proper understanding of how much it will affect their earnings before making the decision to disable a port. It's hard to compare data of months or years with 3 weeks, so some people might want to give this a few months to get some proper numbers and that's well within their rights.
If you are fortunate enouh to have a job with a good stable income and don't need the money from SS - Good for you! Disbaling your port was most likely the right call. But not everyone is in such a fortunate situation. Especially during Crona, which sometimes makes me wonder whether SS picked this time on purpose, knowing that many people might depend more on the money than ever.
It was clear from the charts of dropping portfolio numbers that video contributors were not joining the boycott, because at first their income seemed unaffected. Now I guess Shutterstock has introduced new video pricing, and videographers have the opportunity to feel what everyone else is feeling. Perhaps now everyone will understand why we all need to stand together. Because you think youre the exception, but youre not. And when you decide to stay because youre doing OK, youre undermining all the sacrifices others are making not only on their own behalves but on your behalf as well.
93
« on: June 25, 2020, 18:09 »
I haven't seen any $.30 video downloads yet, but a ton of $1.00 earnings yesterday and today. The higher priced commissions were coming in pretty regularly up until a few days ago, and it's like they turned off that faucet and turned on the $1.00 and less faucet.
I had been reserving judgment on the 'new normal' at Shutterstock, thinking my video earnings might be holding up fine in the new scheme. I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. No longer. Unless things turn around, you can count me in the camp removing their SS ports. I know I'm one of their top earners -- they've called me multiple times in the past to bounce ideas around, and in doing so said they were contacting their top 100 or so contributors by revenue. I'm no Africastudio, but I think they'll take notice if I leave.
Really? Youre not making tons more money, as Jon Oringer tweeted...when was that...just yesterday? Sorry...it was three whole days ago. And I quote: You can focus on the first 100 downloads (ie: the 10 cents per dl) for the year - or you could do what a lot of successful contributors are doing - and making a lot more at the top levels then they ever have before.
94
« on: June 24, 2020, 13:24 »
New Africa has a port at other sites as well. Im guessing Shutterstock gave them permission to have more than one account. Not sure why theyd disable one and not the other.
95
« on: June 22, 2020, 10:27 »
96
« on: June 21, 2020, 14:03 »
Im pretty sure I figured out who reported the article to Facebook. We have an active Shutterstock contributor spying on Facebook and in here, which no doubt is why the bitly posts were also removed. I dont want to say who publicly because I dont want to accuse someone without being 100% sure.
This the troll who has over 25K snapshots in his port?
What a loser
I dont know who you mean, and I dont really want to say anything specific because its just a strong suspicion on my part. Im sure there are multiple people watching what we do.
97
« on: June 21, 2020, 11:55 »
I posted it on Facebook using https://bitly.com (link shortener)
You have no preview of the article, but the link is accepted and clickable.
https://bit.ly/2zQPPKf
I tried using bitly, and as long as I simply posted the link it was fine. But wholl read an article if just a bitly link appears? So I commented that Facebook was censoring the article...and suddenly Im unable to post it. I repeatedly get a message that something went wrong. Were working to fix it as fast as we can. This is some bullshite.
Did you click on this link?
https://bit.ly/2zQPPKf
What happens?
Then you can put the title you want in your facebook post.
I see. You have a bitly link to the article about the Facebook ban of the original article, and were trying to post links to the original article that was banned. Two different things.
98
« on: June 21, 2020, 09:40 »
Im pretty sure I figured out who reported the article to Facebook. We have an active Shutterstock contributor spying on Facebook and in here, which no doubt is why the bitly posts were also removed. I dont want to say who publicly because I dont want to accuse someone without being 100% sure.
99
« on: June 21, 2020, 05:18 »
I posted it on Facebook using https://bitly.com (link shortener)
You have no preview of the article, but the link is accepted and clickable.
https://bit.ly/2zQPPKf
I tried using bitly, and as long as I simply posted the link it was fine. But wholl read an article if just a bitly link appears? So I commented that Facebook was censoring the article...and suddenly Im unable to post it. I repeatedly get a message that something went wrong. Were working to fix it as fast as we can. This is some bullshite.
100
« on: June 20, 2020, 13:45 »
With all the fake stuff on FB and manipulation of the American voting system by bad actors, they choose a little article from a small publication about people protesting a pay cut to block? I just find that chilling.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 116
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
